[gnasher]

---

1♦ shows 5+ diamonds (or 4=4=4=1) and denies a balanced hand.
2♠ shows 5+ clubs and at least invitational values. It's your only way to show clubs (apart from jumping to 5♣).
You have the UI that partner thinks 2♠ shows an invitational+ 3-card diamond raise.

Systemically:
- double would be takeout
- 4♠ would be a cue-bid, with the trump suit unclear but probably clubs
- 4NT would be the minors
- 5♣/♦ would be natural and passable

If you'd shown a three-card raise:
- double would be extra values
- 4♠ would be a cue-bid with diamonds as trumps
- 4NT would be Keycard with diamonds as trumps
- 5♣/♦ would be natural and passable

Which actions are legal?

Edit: Pass would be non-forcing in both auctions.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2014-June-15, 05:54

[FrancesHinden]

You haven't specified whether pass would be forcing or not. I assume it isn't, but as a TD it's the first question I would ask. I know some people play that after showing INV+ values we're forced at the 4-level.

Looking at my hand, and forgetting the UI, double looks like the obvious call. I admit I would rather it were penalties, but I don't want to commit to playing in a minor if partner's going to pass it.
The UI definitely suggests a double because there's a good chance that partner will pass it, so the question for me is whether any of the other possible calls are LAs. If so, then double probably isn't legal.

At the table, I would double, because my immediate reaction is I can't imagine doing anything else.
Thinking about this now, let's consider the alternatives:

- if pass isn't forcing, it's not a LA
- I'm not worth 4S as I can't self-agree clubs
- 4NT looks very odd with only Kx of diamonds. Surely this is 3-6 at least; I'd expect considerably more than 8 minor suit cards.
- 5C and 5D are absurdly committal

No, I'm sticking with double as my only LA

However, that's not answering the whole question.
I personally think that double is legal but it is arguable that it isn't.
I think 4NT is legal, because it's not demonstrably suggested by the UI. To see why we need to think it through: If partner bids 5C you will pass, and either you have 3 top losers or you are likely to have missed a slam; if partner bids 5D that may make, or it may be the wrong contract, who knows? if partner bids 5M you will be confused but will assume partner thinks 4NT is keycard in clubs (given partner passed 3H he can't now have a slam force), you will bid 6C and he may do something horrible in diamonds.
5C is legal, because it's not demonstrably suggested by the UI
5D ditto

[whereagles]

It seems like pard is 4-1-5-3 or 4-1-6-2.

I would consider it obvious to dbl or bid 5♣. Pass here is too tame and I would be suspicious of it being induced by the UI.

[Trinidad]

Without the UI, it looks like partner has something like a 4=1=6=2 hand: He doesn't have hearts, the opponents didn't find their spade fit, partner doesn't have a fit for my clubs, and he doesn't have enough diamonds to rebid them.

This means that we have (close to) a fit for both minors. Double and 4NT bring both minors into the picture and cater to a 4171 hand (partner picks diamonds) as well as a 4252 hand (partner shows his tolerance for my club suit.) It is questionable whether 4NT really is an LA. I think you would need a more distributional hand for that (e.g. 1=2=3=7). I would consider pass an LA too. So, I would see 2 or 3 LAs: Pass and double, and perhaps 4NT.

Now, we need to look what the UI tells us.
1) Partner didn't get that we have clubs and thinks that we have diamonds. So he may have good club support.
2) The bids have changed their meanings.

I would think that 4NT is most likely to lead to the biggest disaster for our side. So, if 4NT is an LA I will have to choose it (since all the LAs are suggested over 4NT).

If 4NT is not an LA, the question is whether pass is suggested over double (or the other way around). I do not really see how one of these is suggested over the other.

So, the question seems to boil down to whether 4NT is an LA. If it is, you have to bid it. If it isn't you can do what you want.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 whereagles, on 2014-June-15, 03:17, said:

It seems like pard is 4-1-5-3 or 4-1-6-2.

I would consider it obvious to dbl or bid 5♣. Pass here is too tame and I would be suspicious of it being induced by the UI.

Isn't the idea that he can be 4-1-5-3 based on the UI? If partner would have understood 2♠, I think he would have shown his club fit. So, without the UI, it would be unlikely for him to have a 4-1-5-3, whereas with the UI it would be entirely possible that he has a 4-1-5-3. I would even say that the UI makes it more likely that he has a 4-1-5-3. With a 4-1-6-2 or 4-1-7-1, he would have rebid diamonds after your "raise".

To me it is fairly obvious that 5♣ (rebidding what you have already shown and what partner is not supposed to have, but the UI says he can have) would be (blatant) use of the UI.

Rik

[ggwhiz]

 gnasher, on 2014-June-15, 01:43, said:

---

Systemically:
- double would be takeout
- 4♠ would be a cue-bid, with the trump suit unclear but probably clubs
- 4NT would be the minors
- 5♣/♦ would be natural and passable
Edit: Pass would be non-forcing in both auctions.

I appear to be hung by the methods and I didn't hear the explanation from partner so this is what I'm stuck with.

Double is takeout (yuk) so it's out.
4nt is both minors so it's out.
5♣ is defensible with partner showing a minimum and may get converted to 5♦ but is indicated by the UI.
The 4♠ cue is just too big a bid opposite a min with potential spade waste so I think I can justify the 5♣ bid if I can bid it smoothly.

[nige1]

 gnasher, on 2014-June-15, 01:43, said:

1♦ shows 5+ diamonds (or 4=4=4=1) and denies a balanced hand.
2♠ shows 5+ clubs and at least invitational values. It's your only way to show clubs (apart from jumping to 5♣).
You have the UI that partner thinks 2♠ shows an invitational+ 3-card diamond raise. Systemically:
- double would be takeout
- 4♠ would be a cue-bid, with the trump suit unclear but probably clubs
- 4NT would be the minors
- 5♣/♦ would be natural and passable
If you'd shown a three-card raise:
- double would be extra values
- 4♠ would be a cue-bid with diamonds as trumps
- 4NT would be Keycard with diamonds as trumps
- 5♣/♦ would be natural and passable

In either case pass would be non-forcing.

---

A poll would be good but FWIW, IMO, Pass is not an LA; systemic LAs in order of preference are:

• Double (takeout).
• 4♠ (Cue with trumps unclear) -- Shows the extra values.
• 4N (Minors). -- Possible.
• 5♣ (Nat) -- Unilateral.
• 5♦ (Nat and passable) -- Presumably at least a slam try.
  

IMO, the UI from partner's explanation changes suggests a different order of attractiveness:

• 5♣ (Nat) -- Emphasizes ♣ alternative.
• Double (Extra values) -- Partner might pass
• 5♦ (Nat) -- May be playable if partner has 5.
• 4♠ (Cue for ♦ -- Likely to get to wrong strain at wrong level.
• 4N (Keycard) - Ditto.

You should choose the least suggested bid that you consider to be a logical alternative (perhaps 4♠ or 4N).

IMO this kind of problem demonstrates how important it is

• To choose pollees ignorant of the deal and result.
• To ask them to order the LAs, in ignorance of the UI.
• To ask them to reorder LAs in the light of the actual UI.

Otherwise, the alleged offender may feel damned whatever he does.

[whereagles]

 Trinidad, on 2014-June-15, 07:42, said:

Isn't the idea that he can be 4-1-5-3 based on the UI? If partner would have understood 2♠, I think he would have shown his club fit. So, without the UI, it would be unlikely for him to have a 4-1-5-3, whereas with the UI it would be entirely possible that he has a 4-1-5-3. I would even say that the UI makes it more likely that he has a 4-1-5-3. With a 4-1-6-2 or 4-1-7-1, he would have rebid diamonds after your "raise".

To me it is fairly obvious that 5♣ (rebidding what you have already shown and what partner is not supposed to have, but the UI says he can have) would be (blatant) use of the UI.

Rik

You're cooking it up too much. Pard has at most 4 spades and 1 heart. Since there's a good chance he'd bid 4♦ with 7 cards, it's a virtual certainty he's 4-1-5-3 or 4-1-6-2, regardless of what he made of the 2♠ bid.

I really think it's just common sense to bid 5♣ here. UI or no UI. (Or dbl for that matter.)

[gnasher]

 nige1, on 2014-June-15, 12:41, said:

A poll would be good

A poll would have been very useful, but sadly the rules make no provision for stopping play in order to conduct this type of research.

Quote

there's a good chance he'd bid 3♦ with 7 cards

3♦ would have been insufficient. Do you mean 4♦?

[barmar]

 Trinidad, on 2014-June-15, 07:42, said:

Isn't the idea that he can be 4-1-5-3 based on the UI? If partner would have understood 2♠, I think he would have shown his club fit.

Since responder might have only invitational strength, opener might not be strong enough to support on the 4 level with only 3 clubs.

[campboy]

 nige1, on 2014-June-15, 12:41, said:

IMO this kind of problem demonstrates how important it is

• To choose pollees ignorant of the deal and result.
• To ask them to order the LAs, in ignorance of the UI.
• To ask them to reorder LAs in the light of the actual UI.

Otherwise, the alleged offender may feel damned whatever he does.

I don't think ordering is sufficient here. It is not just the position of the call, but how much better or worse it is than others that matters.

If without UI I would rate calls as

2♠: 10
3♦: 9

and with UI that would change to

2♠: 10
3♦: 5

then I think 2♠ is suggested by the UI (it has gotten better relative to the alternative), even though the ordering is the same.

[nige1]

 campboy, on 2014-June-16, 02:42, said:

I don't think ordering is sufficient here. It is not just the position of the call, but how much better or worse it is than others that matters. If without UI I would rate calls as
2♠: 10, 3♦: 9
and with UI that would change to
2♠: 10, 3♦: 5
then I think 2♠ is suggested by the UI (it has gotten better relative to the alternative), even though the ordering is the same.

Yes Campboy is probably right . You need to re-mark them, not just re-order them.

[whereagles]

 gnasher, on 2014-June-15, 15:15, said:

3♦ would have been insufficient. Do you mean 4♦?

Yeah that's it. Fixed thx.

[FrancesHinden]

I don't understand the posters who think that 5C is suggested by the UI. The UI tells you that partner won't pass 5C.
5C is a cue for diamonds. It's _more_ likely to lead to disaster than many of the other options.

[nige1]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-June-16, 14:16, said:

I don't understand the posters who think that 5C is suggested by the UI. The UI tells you that partner won't pass 5C. 5C is a cue for diamonds. It's _more_ likely to lead to disaster than many of the other options.

 gnasher, on 2014-June-15, 01:43, said:

If you'd shown a three-card raise [SNIP] - 5♣/♦ would be natural and passable

A cue-bid seems a more likely explanation. Apparently, however, as far as partner's misunderstanding is concerned, you've only slightly exaggerated your ♦ holding. The UI makes a 5♣ continuation quite descriptive

[PhilKing]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-June-16, 14:16, said:

I don't understand the posters who think that 5C is suggested by the UI. The UI tells you that partner won't pass 5C.
5C is a cue for diamonds. It's _more_ likely to lead to disaster than many of the other options.

Not according to the OP - partner thinks you have shown 3 diamonds.